Skip to main content

Full text of "What Was the Word for "Unhappy" in Later Hebrew?"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



442 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

origin of the law, and of the proof of all this, the pledge or token of its 
truth, the exodus from Egypt, all of -which we find summed up in the 

prayer, that begins with 13WN 'n nDSC flDK, continues, according to 

the Sephardic ritual with "|0K> N'D cbwo HON and TPnUK mtj?, and 

ends with 13]"I?NJ DHVDD JlDN. Thus each of these great religious 
truths is solemnly ushered in with a special flDX, a special declaration of 
faith, as though the order of the prayers had been arranged to indicate 
the special importance of the thoughts in which Jehuda-ha-Levi beheld 
the dogmas of Judaism. 

I have neither added to nor amplified, but have, on the contrary, 
given but an inadequate representation of the pious admiration which 
animates our thoughtful author in his explanation of these prayers. 
This interpreter of mediaeval Judaism is so laconically sparing of words, 
that he seems in his writings to have left us merely the key to his 
thoughts, which it then becomes our business to unlock and explain. 

The clear introductory words in which Jehuda-ha-Levi sets forth his 
list of the dogmas of Judaism have been not exactly misunderstood by 
Judah-ibn-Tibbon, but, at any rate, so rendered in his Hebrew transla- 
tion (which and not the Arabic original is the text now universally read) 
as to lead easily to misunderstanding. The Arabian original runs as 
follows' : — 

rhinos ri-ppp onn km t6n TNpjfo* "]bn "mi nn 

Instead of translating the common word nTpJJ by !"IJ1DN, as was cor- 
rectly done by all subsequent translators, Ibn Tibbon, in accordance with 
its etymology, kept servilely to the root of the word, and translated it 
by lXi>p. The misapprehension of the passage was thus decided. Thus 
Cassel, Ed. 2, p. 220, speaks of " bonds " which hold Judaism together, and 
even the pupil of Frat. Maimon Jacob b. Chayim, called Vidal Farissol, in 
the year 1322 explains the passage in a similar sense. DDH """Wpl "IB>K 

mnsn hn annao dh ">bki dhwh nc?p mbw (Cod. Haiberstamm, 

274). He had indeed already found the incorrect reading in the words of 
Judah-ibn-Tibbon. They ought, according to the old MSS. fragments 

of Halberstamm's, to run thus (No. 139), D»"nn*n m ''"Mp \rfpW DM TtJ'K 
The belief (1) in God ; (2) in his eternity ; (3) in his providential 
guidance of Israel's history ; and (4) in his revelation, are the four 
dogmas, in which the most national of all Jewish thinkers recognises the 
shortest exposition of Judaism. 

David Kaufmann. 



What was the Word for "Unhappy" in later Hebrew? 
(Baruch ii. 18.) 

A certain sentence from the penitential prayer of the exiles, in the 
apocryphal Book of Baruch (a prayer, by the way, composed quite in 
the later Muzio style), has always been the despair of translators and 
commentators. According to the received version of the LXX. text. 

1 Ed. Hirschfeld, p. 1C6, lines 6 and 7. 



Notes and Discussion. 443 

the sentence runs as follows : (ii. 17, 18) "Avotgov 6q>daXpovs o-ov, xai toV, 
Srt ovx oi T(6vr)K&res tv t£> qSr) S>v £\Tj<f>di] to irvcvfia iivtuv djro Tun 
<nikayx va>v ovr&v, dmirown 86§av, koi dcKaio>/ia to> KvpiG>' aXka t) ifrvxq fj 
XvirovfUvt] «rl ro /xiyedos, 6 /Sao'ifei kvktop (tai ao-oVvoui', (tai oi 6(p6dK)io\ oj 
(Kkcinovret, Kai r) ^fvxV V neivixra, baxrov&i (roi B6£av, nai diKatoovpr/v, Kvpit. 
The context is clear. We know what ought logically to follow in this 
verse. It is not the dead, says the author, with evident allusion to Psalm 
cxv. 16, who praise the Lord, but the living, who acknowledge and glorify 
the divine grace and mercy, even in the midst of trials and temptations. 
Similarly in Psalm li. 19, a broken spirit, and a broken and a contrite heart 
are described as the sacrifices most pleasing to God. But how are we to 
evolve the required logical sequence of ideas from the incomprehensible 
Greek text ? It is evident from the first that we have to do with a 
mistake of the translator's, who has either misunderstood his original, 
or servilely translated an error in the Hebrew text. We must seek, 
therefore, to cast a glance at the original, through what we may call a 
hole in the outer envelope. 

I will not give an exhaustive enumeration of the attempts that have 
been made to rectify this passage. It may be taken as a proof of its 
difficulty that such an unfortunate conjecture as Fritzsche's, 1 that the 

translator had misread TVW for n?1"JJ, could have met with approval. 
Hitzig 2 thought he could save the text by the supposition of an original 

"IJV ?]! (after Psalm xxxi. 24), so that «Vt to neyedos would translate the 
Hebrew "very" or "exceedingly.'' Reusch 3 even goes so far as to 
insist upon ["Pun being taken as the misunderstood word of the original 

text. Kneucker 4 suggests that 72in should be set up as the mysterious 
word. And, to mention the latest remedy which has been applied to the 
injured sentence, Graetz 5 has endeavoured to find the solution in an 

original n3?, which the translator has turned into !"0"l. 

In spite of all these failures, I have found courage to suggest another 
solution,' which appears to me so obvious, that my only wonder is that 
nobody has done so before. The Greek words Xunovptin) cm to peycOos 

imply a Hebrew original, which the translator read as rplU ?y rQXM. 
As is so frequently the case (cp. a precisely similar example with the 
very same root in the Massoretic text of Proverbs xix. 19), the ~\ 
in the real original was either indistinctly written, or had already been 

miswritten as 1. The author obviously wrote n?"llJ b)3. He mentions 
the soul that laments its fate or lot as being the first of those 
who glorify God. The translator, servilely following bis text, but 
stumbling, as we have seen, at the very threshold, was compelled to 

misunderstand the following portion of the verse ri3 "<72 "]1D3 "p* ^N, 
and thus to make what is really a new subject — namely, the second class 
of the true worshippers of God — refer to to /ie'yftfor. 

np3 D'^y and i13NT K'SJ form the last two groups, so that the whole 
sentence should be thus translated : " but the soul that is grieved because 
of its lot, they who go bowed down and without strength, the eyes that 
fail, and the sorrowful spirit give thee glory and justification, O Lord." 



1 Kurzgefasstes exegctisches Hanottivch zu den Apohryphen, I., 184. 

2 J. J. Kneucker, Bag Bvch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879), p. 243. 

3 Ibid., p. 244. 4 Ibid. 5 MonaUsehrift, 1887, p. 390. 



444 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Perhaps the last -words of the verse ran originally IflplSI 11133 -13JV, 
for in Judges vii. the LXX. renders DIpIS \$n\ by baxrovvi hiKau><rvvr)v. 
On the other hand, Mf^\ is sufficiently justified by Jer. xiii. 16. 

This simple explanation appears to me also to secure for us an addition 
to the vocabulary of later Hebrew. It is in close harmony with the way 
in which the idea of the divine has thoroughly saturated the Hebrew 
language that an exact equivalent for the words happy and unhappy is 
not to be found in it. Not till a comparatively late period do we find 
the words portion and measure used in a metaphorical manner to express 

the ideas of fate and destiny. Just as the phrase lp?n3 nOE> was coined 

to convey the words "contented and happy," so the phrase ?J7 32?yj 

1^113 came into use to signify the contrary state. This, I think, I have 
succeeded in proving from the Hebrew original of the book of Baruch. 

D. Katjfmann.